Often I cruise YouTube when I’m eating lunch at my desk. The other day I found an interesting video from Belinda Carr titled The Hypocrisy of Being GREEN.
As I’ve discussed here before, I strive to sell Green that Saves Green, i.e. I’ll sell you a green option if it saves you money, not just greenwashing. I could very much identify with her comments towards the end about things that are added to projects to get green points on a score sheet that are actually wasteful and don’t advance any value to the building. If you’ve got 10 minutes to take a look, I think it’s worth listening to her explanations. She has some good points.
The ribbon cutting for The Paddocks Apartments in Culver is scheduled for July 24th. We’re working on making this a town event. We have sent out invitation to local civic groups and the Chamber of Commerce is working on recruiting businesses to participate.
The Paddocks is the result of years of local work to solve Culver’s Workforce Housing issue. This began with with citizen input pointing out the need in the last Comprehensive Plan effort. That lead to the creation of a Workforce Housing Committee. From that committee came the research that lead Culver to pursue Stellar designation. The main goal in pursuing Stellar was to qualify for a tax credit set-aside for a Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project. That project is The Paddocks.
From its construction start to in 2019 to its completion this year, The Paddocks has been observed closely. It has prompted Plymouth and LaPaz to pursue a LIHTC project under Marshall County. This ribbon cutting is the culmination of this.
As we’ve discussed in our invitations, The Paddocks has brought 25 new families to Culver so far. It is up to the rest of Culver’s citizens, businesses and civic groups to make these new residents into community members and good citizens.
Lieutenant Governor Suzanne Crouch will be here to help celebrate the project Part of her duties as Lieutenant Governor is to oversee OCRA and IHCDA. OCRA oversees the Stellar program and IHCDA oversees the tax credit program. L.G. Crouch was here when Culver first achieved Stellar designation, so we’re pleased that she can come back and see the fruits of our labor.
We’re hoping this is an event that is the start of something good for Culver. Those 25 new families have brought 20 new kids to Culver Schools and some of these new residents are already working in local businesses. This is a great opportunity for Culver to come together.
I just found out that 8 senators have signed on to a bipartisan bill that would eliminate the time change. Their choice is to stay with Daylight Savings Time year-round, but for me, fast or slow time doesn’t matter… just stop changing it!!!
The bill at the right can be read a little easier at Senator Marco Rubio’s website here. It lays out the pros of eliminating the time change for health, safety and commerce reasons.
I plan on contacting my Indiana Senators and ask why they haven’t signed on yet! I also read that 15 states have legislation eliminating it, but they can’t unilaterally do this without Federal Approval. (here)
I’ve never liked the time change and this morning was no exception. I’m assuming I’ll be dealing with the effects of it for at least this week…
My Great Aunt Melba was recently named as a Citizen of the Year by the Culver Lions Club. (See the Article to the right). I’ve written about her here before. (previous posts here and here)
She has had a long and interesting life. She is the last surviving member of the second generation of Easterday Construction Co., Inc. She was married to Edward Lee (Red) Easterday, Russell’s middle son and she worked for the company for a time during World War II when Red was in the service.
She’ll be celebrating her 100th Birthday next month. It’s great to have her represent that generation of our family. She has long served as the family historian and I hope to learn a few more anecdotes the next time I can see her. Unfortunately she’s currently living at Millers Merry Manor in Culver and with Covid restrictions, I haven’t seen her in over a year.
Thank you to the Lions Club for recognizing her contributions to the community. I won’t reiterate what’s in the article, but I know it only scratches the surface.
I ran across an interesting article at QRFS.com’s Blog titled The Conflict Over Residential Fire Sprinkler Requirements which I found interesting. It does a reasonable job of laying out pro’s and con’s on the the cost of the systems themselves and their safety benefits. What it does not discuss is the additional regressive fees that communities are currently putting on these systems. This is often a hidden tax as well, i.e. one that’s not recognized until the bill comes after construction.
This is an argument I had with the Town of Culver last year. Sand Hill Farm Apartments has a Fire Sprinkler System. This is required by the State of Indiana. We also installed a fire hydrant on the property. This was not required, but just seemed like a reasonable way to terminate the line. (There is a fire hydrant adjacent to the site in the street, so there was no insurance benefit or coverage benefit to it. It was just there to flush the line.) Before construction was even complete, we received two invoices from the Town, one for $700 for having a Fire Hydrant and one for $1,200 (plus tax!) for having a Fire Sprinkler System. When I inquired about this, I was told that it was in the ordinance. It doesn’t cover material, maintenance, inspections, replacement or any other service. Paraphrasing: It is there to cover additional load and upsizing of the system to support the additional fire protection. These are arbitrary fees, i.e. it is the same fee whether one of these is installed in a single family home, a 24 unit apartment building or a 400,000 sf manufacturing facility.
This is not solely picking on Culver. Culver is just where it first came to my attention. While they are not as high, Plymouth has the same fees. Neither community allows for higher densities (as suggested in the linked article) or gives any other incentives; just punitive fees if these things are installed. They are also not capped, so if a developer/apartment building owner/homeowner would rationalize these fees as they stand and plan for them, there is no guarantee that they will not double or triple in the future. Being an arbitrary fee suggests that it can change arbitrarily as well. These fees are apparently suggested by the accountants doing the rate studies as a way of reducing fees charged to residents.
It cost $500 to remove the fire hydrant at Sand Hill Farm Apartments. Wasted money on top of the original installation, but a reasonable investment against $700 or more a year forever more. Again, there was no issue regarding coverage as there is a fire hydrant in the street in front of the building. It was installed on site as a way to flush the line where it terminated.
In my opinion, the assertions made about the additional costs for the system are specious. 1) The standard line size was used in the street in front of the apartments to provide the loop service and to supply the fire hydrant that would have been there regardless of the development. The line was not upsized due to the sprinkler system. 2) The whole point of the sprinkler system is to put out a fire before it spreads. Theoretically, a fire in one of the apartments would be extinguished before it spread to other units, using much less water than a building that could otherwise be engulfed in flames.
Furthermore, it would make sense to encourage sprinkler systems with incentives in lieu of penalizing them with regressive fees. 1) They improve life safety for residents. 2) They improve life safety for fire fighters. 3) They reduce fire fighting equipment costs. 4) They improve a communities fire rating, which helps all residents.
Because the State requires sprinkler systems in multifamily housing, the local community has building owners over a barrel. We took this into account for the Riverside Commons project planned for Plymouth. That development will be 100% townhouses. By using this model, with firewalls in-between units, the State requirement is void. This increases initial construction costs, but helps control yearly ownership costs.
At some point, as discussed in the QRFS article, fire sprinklers may be required in all residential construction. I cannot say this is a bad thing or that it doesn’t improve life safety. It is one more thing that contributes to the high cost of housing and is an expense that must be considered on any affordable housing project.